From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a270a1fc28d4f812
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-24 13:03:59 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OOD in Ada?
Date: 24 Jun 2002 13:03:58 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <ba162549.0206241203.1d375611@posting.google.com>
References: <3d135676$0$8511$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.76.70.227
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1024949039 12649 127.0.0.1 (24 Jun 2002 20:03:59
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Jun 2002 20:03:59 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26670
Date: 2002-06-24T20:03:59+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"David Crocker" <dcrocker@eschertech.com> wrote in message news:<3d135676$0$8511$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> I know that Ada95 tries to support O-O development, but from my perspective
> as an OO developer but Ada novice, it appears to me that any attempt to
> implement a large OO design in Ada will run into the following problems:
> 
> 1. The infamous "withing" problem (i.e. it is not possible to declare 2
> classes A and B, each in its own package, such that A has a method taking a
> paremeter of type "access B", and B has a method with a parameter of type
> "access A"); 

It's possible to do this in C++ but it's seldom a good idea.  Instead
one should declare all mutually dependent classes in a single header
file, and implement them in a single source file.  

The Java requirement of a separate file for each class forces one
to physically separate classes that aren't really separable.

Excessive inter-class dependencies make many large OO programs
almost unmaintainable.

> 
> 2. The lack of a "dot" notation (or anything similar) for calling a member
> method, making the code hard to read and hard to determine where dynamic
> binding may be taking place.

The C++ community is now questioning the value of the
"dot" notation for calling member functions.  Having two different
function call notations makes generic programming more difficult.